The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc. - (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

This blog once bore the name 'EDL Extra'. I supported the EDL until 2012. As the reader will see, the last post which supports the EDL dates back to 2012. This blog, nonetheless, retains the former web address.

Tuesday, 14 May 2013

Inside Every Leftist is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out





Leftist Psychology

A Leftist will tell you that his dogmatism and totalitarianism (though of course he won’t use those words), as well as his policies and actions (e.g., ‘the no platform policy’), are vital because his very many enemies, as well as Das System itself, are so all-embracing, omnipresent and evil that such dogmatism and totalitarianism are required. Accordingly the ends, as so often with Leftists, justify the means.

That’s why many Leftists foam at the mouth and shout a lot. It expresses their foaming minds and hearts. Psychologically speaking, it’s often the case that, as Bertrand Russell put it, "fanaticism is a camouflage for cruelty" and that "fanatics are seldom genuinely humane". Again, just look into the face of your average Leftist and ask yourself this:

Is his heart bleeding for the poor and oppressed, or is he simply foaming at the mouth about his enemies and because he desirous of their annihilation?

Think of the eroticised nature of so much ‘anti-Zionist’ action and rhetoric along with Israel monomania. Therefore hate (for Zionists, neo-liberals, etc. ad infinitum) and not love (for the oppressed, the Palestinians, etc.) is the prime emotion of the zealous Leftist. He finds the hatred “of enemies easier and more intense than love of friends”, as Bertrand Russell once again put it. Therein lies a profound warning to us all.

Then there is the pure moral outrage of the righteous Left .That’s another reason why so many Leftists foam at the mouth and why they accuse their  very many enemies of being ‘racists’, ‘fascists’, ‘fascist racists’, ‘racist racists’, ‘bigoted racists’ and all the rest. They have the Truth and everyone else simply opposes the Truth. That Truth, in this case, wasn’t written by Mohammed, it was written by Chomsky, Marx or whoever. It’s just as firmly held by these PC and Leftist puritans as it is by the straightforwardly religious. Look into the face of those zealous little Leftists. The faces of puritan outrage against all those who dare fall outside their tiny fold. Leftists have the Truth in its purest form. Hence the facial contortions which are manifested during speeches and demonstrations. Their hate is pure and unadulterated.

And just as radical Muslims see the world in terms of a Manichean battle between good and evil, so too do many Leftists believe that they are involved in a war with capitalism and all it sundries and cohorts. Consequently, just as militant Muslims say that all our problems will be solved when the entire world "belongs to Allah"; so Leftists believe that a pure and ubiquitous “progressivism”, or even just a plain revolution, will solve all our problems.

There will always be a rationalisation of such illiberalism or totalitarianism from Leftists. Such as: “We must not give a platform to…” this, that and the other. We must ‘crush’ or ‘smash’ this, that and the other. And there’s never any guilt because the numerous enemies are just so damn evil!

Word-Weapons & Tactics

Have you ever wondered why these Leftists accuse just about everybody (except blacks, Muslims, etc.), and every organisation, of being 'fascist', 'Nazi', ‘bigoted’, etc.?

One illuminating reason why they do so is for the same reason Stalin did so.

The thing about Stalin's frequent use of the word 'fascist' was that it was more a political tactic than an ideologically-inspired position. Accusing one’s enemies of being “fascists” works - politically speaking. And thus Leftists use this term - as well as many others like it - very often. According to Jonah Goldberg, in his book, Liberal Fascism, it’s the case that

"no one has to take a fascist seriously. You're under no obligation to listen to a fascist's arguments [surely he can't have arguments] or concern yourself with his feelings or rights [he has none].” (3)

Stalin, after achieving absolute power in the Soviet Union, engendered many enemies. (Most of whom were the fictitious results of his conspiratorial - or literally paranoid - mind.) Quite simply, the socialists who were aligned with Moscow weren’t enemies. The socialists who weren’t aligned with Moscow were his enemies. So how did Stalin deal with these enemies? Simple. He accused all of them of being “fascists”. (There were very many other word-weapons which Stalin used against his enemies: 'Zionist', 'cosmopolitan' [usually a Jew], 'reactionary', 'reformist', 'bourgeois', 'right socialist' and so on.)

Contemporary Leftists also use word-weapons. They include: 'Zionist', 'Islamophobe', 'racist', 'bigot', 'thug', 'neo-con', 'neo-liberal', etc. In other words, the average Leftist utilises a vast array of word-weapons which are often no less than Leftist soundbites. (These go along with soundbite phrases and even whole sentences - when they can manage them.)

The terrible and depressing thing is that this juvenile use of such word-weapons often does the job. After all the English Defence League and even UKIP can’t give talks at British student unions because such groups are deemed 'fascist' or 'essentially Nazi' by totalitarian students; as well as by some of their teachers and professors.

Take this specific example. Today it is impossible to criticise any aspect of Islam without being accused of being an 'Islamophobe' or a 'racist' or a 'Nazi' or a 'bigot' or a 'thug'. In addition, way back in the 1980s, even the British Conservative Party, not just its ‘New Right', was often classed as being 'fascist' by many Leftist groups.

Of course such Leftist student-like uses of the word 'fascist' against everyone - who dares to disagree with them - may result in its use ceasing to be taken seriously. In fact that has been the actual result for some people. Unfortunately many other people are still almost instinctively frightened or enraged when someone, or something, is deemed to be fascist. However, whenever the rest of us hear the word 'fascist' we should reach for our guns. (This is, of course, a fascist reaction to the use of the word 'fascist'!)

All this shows us that the average Leftist hardly indulges in political thought; despite the importance he gives to what is calls "theory". That theory, even though theory, is itself hardly or rarely thought about - certainly not by your average Leftist. Even when the theory is stated, it's still not independently thought about.

These soundbites, such as "blacks can't be racist", and word-weapons such as "racist" or "fascist", are used to stop their own thought; not only to stop debate. If you can encapsulate a political enemy in a single word (e.g., "racist"), or come out with a Leftist soundbite ("counter-jihadism is racism"), then you don't need to think at all. Most of all, you needn’t debate with someone who disagrees with you. He is too evil or "dangerous".

Virtually every Leftist has a tacit - sometimes explicit - commitment to a massive and universal ‘no platform policy’ (as first used by British student unions and Hope Not Hate) for all the people who they disagree with. They pretend that it's because the person they disagree with is so evil or "dangerous" that their No Platform Policy is legitimate. But you soon realise that far too many people fall under the policy. Consequently it is quite arbitrary and totalitarian.

This No Platform Policy is no more or less that the contemporary version of the Gulag. It's nowhere near as bad; but that's simply because these Leftists don't have the requisite political power to make their NPP as bad as the Soviet Gulag.

Despite all this, Leftists still have the audacity to say that they believe in freedom of speech... just not in cases of X, Y, Z, etc. That is, in the cases when it "offends people”, or when it “targets Muslims” or Islam, etc. But what's the point in believing in freedom of speech if you only believe in such a freedom for the innocuous or harmless expressions of it? Everybody believes in the right to criticise a certain TV programme or a particular make of chocolate bar. No problems there. Nevertheless, your commitment to freedom of speech can only shows itself in the controversial examples, such as criticism of Islam, the support of controversial views in genetics, positions on abortion, etc. This often means that Leftists only give a "platform" to those they agree with. But that’s not a commitment to free speech. When free speech is used against the Leftists’ own many sacred cows; then they soon change their tune about it.

Another neat way in which many Leftists rationalise their inherent totalitarianism is in the devious, or sometimes just plain stupid, ways in which they debate (if “debate” is the correct word at all here). For example, say that you express your support for X (e.g., for deporting a terrorist suspect), then the Leftist often automatically assumes that you must also support Y and/or Z (e.g., “deporting all Muslims” and/or not “allowing any immigrants into the country”). Alternatively, if you criticise X (say, Islam), then he’ll say, or imply, that it’s also your duty to criticise Y and/or Z as well (say, Judaism and/or the US use of drones in Pakistan). In theory, that would mean that if you criticise/support X, then you must also criticise/support everything else that is humanly possible to criticise/support. Even when the criticisable/supportable subjects mentioned by the Leftist are indeed connected in some way to your original subject, it would still mean that he must (implicitly) assume that you should have criticised/supported innumerable other things as well. This would have had the consequence, if the Leftist’s position had been followed, that you would have ended up writing or saying something else entirely; which is probably precisely what he wanted all along!

Searchlight/Hope Not Hate against the Entire Right

A good example of the inherently totalitarian nature of the Left in the UK is supplied by the “street activist” group and publication, Hope Not Hate/Searchlight.  Searchlight/Hope Not Hate describes itself as being ‘anti-fascist’.

SEARCHLIGHT/Hope Not Hate published its “annual review of Britain’s far right” a few months ago. One of its writers, Cato, is said to have investigated “a few of the ultra-right conservative groups”.

For a start, are there any right-wing groups which aren’t "far right" according to Searchlight/Hope Not Hate? If so, which ones are they? I bet they can’t name a single one.

In the 1980s, when Leftism was more honest and open, many Leftists classed the British Conservative Party as being "far right" and even “fascist”. (Chomsky not only calls Israel a “Nazi state”; he also says the same about the United States - which he thinks needs to be “de-Nazified”.) If that's the case - everyone who is right wing, or nationalist or patriotic, is actually far right according to Searchlight/Hope Not Hate. There are no fine gradations here. There’s absolutely zero subtlety or sophistication. Above all, it’s all a neat and tidy way of dismissing every person who disagrees with Searchlight/Hope Not Hate’s Leftist “analysis” (if that’s what it is) of every form of nationalism or patriotism.

Basically, every single Nationalist and patriotic group in the UK is on the Searchlight/Hope Not Hate (hit)list. This means that Searchlight/Hope Not Hate not only completely rejects all patriotic or nationalist groups, but also the right of patriotic or nationalist viewpoints to so much as exist.

So what is all this? What’s the undercurrent of the said article? This:

That there should be a (Leftist) no platform policy upheld on every single one of the groups and organisations listed.

This effectively means that Searchlight/Hope Not Hate demands an admittedly toned-downed version of the Soviet Gulag to silence the views it disagrees with or finds unpalatable. Of course it’s not literally the Gulag. It’s not as extreme or repressive. But that’s simply because the Leftists of Searchlight/Hope Not Hate haven’t got the requisite political power to bring about the New British Gulag they so yearn for.

These people ease their qualms about agitating for a No Platform Policy (the Lesser Gulag) because they convince themselves that the Right – not only the “Far Right” – is both evil (of course they never use the word “evil”) and politically dangerous. Thus it must be destroyed in all its forms and manifestations. As the Left often puts it, the entire Right must be destroyed “by any means necessary” (e.g., by “lying for Justice” or by calling all opponents “racist” or the now fashionable “Islamophobe”.)

It is of course the case that Searchlight/Hope Not Hate - and other soundbite Leftists - hates debate and has the same totalitarian mind-set which the real Nazis - not many of the patriotic groups it campaigns against - display.

Searchlight/Hope Not Hate is the inverse/reverse of the Nazism/fascism it is fighting against. Or, by another image, Searchlight/Hope Not Hate and the Nazis/fascists they fight meet, ideologically and often also in terms of “praxis”, on their respective extremes. They fight each other because they are rival political power-blocks fighting over pretty much the same bone. That's why both groups promise zero unemployment, new selfless leaders, the punishment of evil bankers, rights for the poor, death to "neo-cons" and "neo-liberals" and so on. That is, both Searchlight/Hope Not Hate Leftists and Nazis promise the world that they will "destroy capitalism" and create some kind of Utopia  - even if the word “Utopia", like “evil”, is never used.

No comments:

Post a Comment